MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139432295 · doi:10.1136/jmg.2010.087379

Germline <i>PALB2</i> mutation analysis in breast–pancreas cancer families: Table 1

2011· article· en· W2139432295 on OpenAlexaff
Zsofia K. Stadler, Erin Salo‐Mullen, Nelly Sabbaghian, Li Zhang, Sara H. Olson, Robert C. Kurtz, Kenneth Offit, William D. Foulkes, Mark E. Robson, Marc Tischkowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPALB2Breast cancerPancreatic cancerGermline mutationPancreasCancerMedicineFamily historyMutationInternal medicineOncologyCancer researchGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the PALB2 gene have been implicated in both breast cancer and pancreatic cancer susceptibility. The extent to which PALB2 mutations account for cancer susceptibility in breast-pancreas cancer families is unknown. METHODS: High Resolution Melting analysis and Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification were performed to investigate the prevalence of PALB2 mutations in patients with either a personal history of both breast and pancreatic cancer or a personal history of breast cancer and a family history of a first degree relative with pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: No PALB2 mutations were identified in 77 breast-pancreas cancer families, which included 22 probands with a personal history of both breast and pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Mutations within the PALB2 gene are rare events that do not account for a substantial proportion of cancer susceptibility in breast-pancreas cancer families. Routine screening of breast-pancreas cancer families for the presence of PALB2 mutations appears to be low yield.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207